Saturday, May 19, 2012

The more clearly you become conscious of the frailty, vanity, and dream-like quality of all things, the more clearly you will also become conscious of the eternity of your own inner being; because it is only in contrast to this eternity that the these qualities of things become evident, just as you perceive the speed at which a ship is going only when looking at the motionless shore, not when looking into the ship itself.

"Without a trace of irony, Krauss approvingly cites physicist Frank
Wilczek’s unflattering comparison of string theory to a rigged game of
darts: “First, one throws the dart against a blank wall, and then one
goes to the wall and draws a bull’s-eye around where the dart landed.”
Yet that is exactly Krauss’ procedure. He defines “nothing” and other
key concepts precisely so as to guarantee that only the physicist’s
methods he is comfortable with can be applied to the question of the
universe’s origin—and that only a nontheological answer will be
forthcoming."

The atheists themselves don't seem to
see the need to be precise, exact, and consistent in their definitions or
reasoning, yet chide believers in God for allegedly not doing so.

Meanwhile,
the atheist crawlers, cheerleaders, and other histrionic underlings come along and---also
without any reasoning---dismiss the obvious fallacies pointed out by
theists.

Where's the scientific reasoning? Where's the strict
rigorous numbering and inference-derivation documentation and proofs of
the atheists' claims, like any logic, sets, and functions course
exercises? I don't see a single atheist scholar that is even attempting
such a thing. It's the theists who are taking the analysis of issues to
greater degrees of argumentative meticulousness, facing the self-referential issues, asking the meta-theoretic questions, and so on---not the atheists.